Global Warming to Climate change to Climate Catastrophe.

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW, IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, of Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have."

The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below two degrees this century, then the changes we would experience would be manageable.

Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years, in 2030.

We can stay below it - but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals and we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, about 2.5% of global gross domestic product (GDP), the value of all goods and services produced, for two decades.

Even then, we will still need machines, trees and plants to capture carbon from the air that we can then store deep underground - forever.

Final call to save the world from 'climate catastrophe'


I think it's all interesting as hell, kinda like watching a 100 meter tsunami approach while sipping a martini.

 

[bilby]

While Greenpeace remain amongst the most vocal and violent opponents of the single most effective means to lower carbon dioxide emissions, they need to go and eat a very large bag of dicks, rather than be treated by the media as though their opinions were worthy of publication.

 

[aupmanyav]

For the last few years, the climate HAS changed perceptibly. Too much rain and floods over many areas in the world (India included), extreme heat, more snow (We got snow this month which should have come around New Year's time). What can we do about it? Perhaps sip a Martini.

 

[steve_bank]

The report was in the news. Overshadowed by weeks of a sex scandal.

Asteroids once and and while get closer than the moon's orbit, no one seems to care or get alarmed and demand an accelerated asteroid intercept program.

We have failed the Darwin test.

 

[Harry Bosch]

While Greenpeace remain amongst the most vocal and violent opponents of the single most effective means to lower carbon dioxide emissions, they need to go and eat a very large bag of dicks, rather than be treated by the media as though their opinions were worthy of publication.

I assume that you mean nuclear? If so, agreed...

 

[Politesse]

History is littered with failures of long-term planning that led to wholesale political collapse later on. We are not, as a species, talented at focusing on distant threats whose solution would conflict with immediate needs.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

History is littered with failures of long-term planning that led to wholesale political collapse later on. We are not, as a species, talented at focusing on distant threats whose solution would conflict with immediate needs.

Quite accurate.

 

[PyramidHead]

While Greenpeace remain amongst the most vocal and violent opponents of the single most effective means to lower carbon dioxide emissions, they need to go and eat a very large bag of dicks, rather than be treated by the media as though their opinions were worthy of publication.

I assume that you mean nuclear? If so, agreed...

Thirded. Such a shame. It's funny how when educated opinions get more widespread, they inevitably pick up less educated hangers-on, and by the time it becomes a full-blown international organization both the educated and uneducated claims are presented with equal volume.

 

[PyramidHead]

History is littered with failures of long-term planning that led to wholesale political collapse later on. We are not, as a species, talented at focusing on distant threats whose solution would conflict with immediate needs.

Quite accurate.

It's a species thing, sure, but it also just boils down to a decision of ours that we are free to make at any time.

We can either have capitalism or we can have a habitable planet.

 

[rousseau]

History is littered with failures of long-term planning that led to wholesale political collapse later on. We are not, as a species, talented at focusing on distant threats whose solution would conflict with immediate needs.

Quite accurate.

It's a species thing, sure, but it also just boils down to a decision of ours that we are free to make at any time.

We can either have capitalism or we can have a habitable planet.

I don't know that this is true.

It's clear that the overwhelming majority of people aren't rational actors, and don't support the political means necessary to actually do anything about global warming.

It's really easy to make statements like people should just stop being dumb and do something, but people being dumb is the problem we need to get around. And the only people who can make meaningful change (politicians) are not only subject to to the masses, but are often scientifically illiterate morons themselves.

It's easy for people to shout 'global warming is real, this is what we need to do', but the problem isn't knowing what we need to do, it's how to implement it politically.

 

[steve_bank]

Another hurricane, Florida gulf coast. Evacuations underway/

 

[Bomb#20]

We can either have capitalism or we can have a habitable planet.

The countries that abolished capitalism had such marvelous environmental practices.

 

[PyramidHead]

We can either have capitalism or we can have a habitable planet.

The countries that abolished capitalism had such marvelous environmental practices.

Nice picture of some barrels. You're not thinking long-term. I never said giving up capitalism is a sufficient condition to keep the planet habitable, but it is surely a necessary condition. Based on the predictions in the article, anything short of a complete economic and social overhaul imposed from the top down will fail to keep the increase to within 1.5C. When I say "keep the planet habitable" I mean further out than just one or two generations, and there's no reason to think the temperature will magically start to drop on its own after the target 100 years has passed. We will continue to contribute to the warming if the name of the game is expansion and acquisition, which it must be in any economy driven by the profit motive. Many things will have to change if we are to survive as a species, and how we produce, consume, and distribute resources is just one of them.

 

[Politesse]

History is littered with failures of long-term planning that led to wholesale political collapse later on. We are not, as a species, talented at focusing on distant threats whose solution would conflict with immediate needs.

Quite accurate.

It's a species thing, sure, but it also just boils down to a decision of ours that we are free to make at any time.

We can either have capitalism or we can have a habitable planet.

Can you though? Really? Could you wake up tomorrow and simply "not have capitalism"? These systems are on some level self- replicating... people always have compelling reasons why they feel they must play their particular role in the reproduction of the systems to which they belong. This inertia can be difficult if not impossible to turn aside.

 

[skepticalbip]

History is littered with failures of long-term planning that led to wholesale political collapse later on. We are not, as a species, talented at focusing on distant threats whose solution would conflict with immediate needs.

Quite accurate.

It's a species thing, sure, but it also just boils down to a decision of ours that we are free to make at any time.

We can either have capitalism or we can have a habitable planet.

That looks like a false attribution fallacy. Apparently your assumption is that only capitalism can create CO2 or, without capitalism, there would be no threat of an asteroid impact.

 

[PyramidHead]

It's a species thing, sure, but it also just boils down to a decision of ours that we are free to make at any time.

We can either have capitalism or we can have a habitable planet.

That looks like a false attribution fallacy. Apparently your assumption is that only capitalism can create CO2 or, without capitalism, there would be no threat of an asteroid impact.

No. As I stated in my next comment:

I never said giving up capitalism is a sufficient condition to keep the planet habitable, but it is surely a necessary condition.

Think of it like this: if you don't stop eating glass, you'll probably die an early death. But even if you do stop eating glass, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow. Is that a reason to keep on eating glass?

 

[rousseau]

It's a species thing, sure, but it also just boils down to a decision of ours that we are free to make at any time.

We can either have capitalism or we can have a habitable planet.

Can you though? Really? Could you wake up tomorrow and simply "not have capitalism"? These systems are on some level self- replicating... people always have compelling reasons why they feel they must play their particular role in the reproduction of the systems to which they belong. This inertia can be difficult if not impossible to turn aside.

^^^^ that

Capitalism isn't a social construct, it's what happens when communities of people attempt to survive among each other. You can't rid the world of 'capitalism' because ultimately people still need to.. capitalize.

 

[PyramidHead]

It's a species thing, sure, but it also just boils down to a decision of ours that we are free to make at any time.

We can either have capitalism or we can have a habitable planet.

Can you though? Really? Could you wake up tomorrow and simply "not have capitalism"? These systems are on some level self- replicating... people always have compelling reasons why they feel they must play their particular role in the reproduction of the systems to which they belong. This inertia can be difficult if not impossible to turn aside.

Realistically speaking, it won't happen. But I maintain that it's a different kind of problem than people make it out to be. There are problems that we don't know how to solve yet and are still trying to figure out. Diseases that are as yet incurable, that sort of thing. That's one kind of problem. But global warming, poverty, and hunger are not that kind of problem. They are the kinds of problems that have every ability to solve, but remain problems because we are not willing to solve them. In effect, this unwillingness is itself another problem, and it's unfortunately a problem of the first kind.

 

[skepticalbip]

No. As I stated in my next comment:

I never said giving up capitalism is a sufficient condition to keep the planet habitable, but it is surely a necessary condition.

Think of it like this: if you don't stop eating glass, you'll probably die an early death. But even if you do stop eating glass, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow. Is that a reason to keep on eating glass?

You still haven't made a case that capitalism is responsible, only an absurd assertion, or made a case that explains how eliminating capitalism will eliminate the threat.

 

[PyramidHead]

It's a species thing, sure, but it also just boils down to a decision of ours that we are free to make at any time.

We can either have capitalism or we can have a habitable planet.

Can you though? Really? Could you wake up tomorrow and simply "not have capitalism"? These systems are on some level self- replicating... people always have compelling reasons why they feel they must play their particular role in the reproduction of the systems to which they belong. This inertia can be difficult if not impossible to turn aside.

^^^^ that

Capitalism isn't a social construct, it's what happens when communities of people attempt to survive among each other. You can't rid the world of 'capitalism' because ultimate people still need to.. capitalize.

Then we're basically doomed. You're not wrong.